 This video is going to be as brief as I can make it. I'm still working on the Science of Race part 2, and it should be up shortly. Be sure to join us on the Magic Sandwich show tomorrow. Our guests will be theoretical bullshit, and I think we'll have an interesting and lively discussion. It's the usual time, usual place. I want to talk about Thunderfoot and his recent expulsion from free-thought blogs by Peezy Meyers. I consider Thunder a friend, even when we don't always agree, and I thought Peezy's actions were pretty dodgy. What I want to address though is the psychology behind this interaction. To briefly recount the events in question, Thunder kicked off his new blog with posts on the issue of sexism at atheist conferences. He tried to apply his usual rational objective perspective to come at the issue as an outsider, a neutral party, a non-combatant. It's the same thing I try to do with controversial issues. That's precisely the problem though. Thunder hasn't been involved in the long history of feminist thought in the secular movement. Peezy has. Thunder doesn't have a strong opinion, hasn't engaged in debates, and hasn't fought this battle for the last few decades. Peezy has. I'll give you an example of what it must have looked like to Peezy. Imagine that Stephen Hawking was asked to speak to a group of evolutionary biologists. He offers, as an unbiased observer, the position that perhaps intelligence design really ought to be taught alongside evolution in the public school classroom, as an exercise in critical thinking. Jeannie Scott of the NCSE is sitting in the front row. How would she feel? She'd have a headache from the light speed face palm. She'd feel that her movement had been set back, and she'd certainly want to distance herself from Dr. Hawking and his comments. He'd never be invited back if she had her way. In every one of these controversial debates, the process of discussion, the process of defending a viewpoint almost inevitably leads to radicalization, a pulling towards one polar position. Eventually, we have two sides trading barbs, the discussion brought to a halt by too many harsh words, like two armies lined up across a no man's land. Some newcomer blunders in, thunderfoot, and makes a statement that seems to slightly favor one position, that repeats some old position held by one group. Instantly, the other side identifies the person as a future opponent, and they immediately distance themselves. This isn't about malevolence, it's just the nature of an intractable debate. I find myself falling in the same trap. There is nothing like a debate with a radical to radicalize me. I find that the more I engage with marijuana evangelists, the more fervently I assert the harms of cannabis. Every time I engage with anti-GMO campaigners, it pulls me inexorably towards a pro-GMO position. Being presented with outrageous statements makes us rush to the defense of a position of reason, but it generates a momentum towards the opposite pole. It takes a conscious effort on my part to maintain my open-mindedness, and I don't always succeed. I don't particularly care if Thunderfoot's position was right or wrong, mostly because I have no investment in feminism or its opposition, no reason to engage on this issue. His video may have oversimplified the issue, or it may be outright wrong and hurt the cause of a diverse secular community. I think his conflict with PZ was just that he wasn't a partisan. By not supporting that position, he necessarily became the enemy. I don't blame PZ because I can understand what this looks like to him as well. He cares about the diversity of the secular community, and to him, Thunder's post threatened that cause. The only victory to be had in these situations is peaceful coexistence. PZ saw to it that Thunder no longer had a home or a voice at free-thought blogs. That, I will condemn. It would have been better to simply acknowledge the disagreement, maybe attempt to expose the flaws in Thunder's position, and move on. There is a certain irony to being dropped by a blog created for the purpose of free-thought. FTB was created specifically in response to this kind of restrictive editorial control of content. Even the issue at hand is the topic of how we maintain a diversity of people and opinions. I think that cause was harmed by the example PZ said here. I can appreciate his perspective and his goals, but I think he went about it the wrong way. Right or wrong, clueless or enlightened, the community thrives on diversity of thought. The smartest people I know are the ones who surround themselves with opposing viewpoints. Thanks for watching.